Path to child migrant compromise?

With August looming and Congress deadlocked, the 24-page supplemental spending bill filed Wednesday evening in the Senate may be most important for the structure it provides on how to deal with the child migrant crisis at the border.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) took President Barack Obama’s request and compressed it into a four- to five-month period to carry agencies through just the end of this calendar year.

Text Size

-

+

reset

In a bid for Republican votes, money is included to help Israel and to fight wildfires in the West. Mikulski prods Obama to do more to address criminal gangs and smugglers behind the surge in children fleeing Central America. And this former Baltimore social worker goes far beyond the Harvard law graduate in providing money to ensure that the children have legal representation in immigration courts.

Across the Capitol, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) wants less spending and more offsets. But he also has embraced the concept of a four- to five-month time frame, and this raises the question of whether temporary changes in immigration policy can be found to match the temporary relief in funding.

“I don’t think you’re going to find many conservatives willing to spend much money if we don’t change the policy,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). “Now if it coincides, the expiration of the spending and the change in policy, then I don’t know. That’s kind of a funky way to do business,” he said with a laugh. “But I’m not on Appropriations.”

Funky? In reality, Congress has a long history of attaching legislative riders to appropriations measures to temporarily affect policy for the life of the bill itself. From the standpoint of coping with the problem at hand and testing new approaches on a trial basis, there are arguments for doing the same here.

If the changes work and gain support, they can be extended, much as riders are. If they prove unworkable, they can die, again as some riders are dropped.

“We have to deal with this immediate crisis. I’d consider that,” said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). “It’s an interesting concept,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). “I always say I am one to look for compromises to get things done. … For a trial basis, maybe so.”

Both men were responding to questions from a reporter — not rushing to the floor with new plans. And the real-life political climate was better captured by New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall, a border-state Democrat who also said he is open to the idea but is now firmly behind Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in opposing any changes in law — temporary or not.

“I’m trying to be part of the group to see if we can build a majority for something,” Udall said. “I think there has been a pretty firm position from leadership to not do any language on the supplemental — to not do any language at all.”

“At this point, I am with the leadership,” Udall said. “Because I think that’s the only way to get something passed.”

But that’s a prescription for stalemate, if Republicans refuse to help Mikulski get to the 60 votes needed next week. By the same token, what the GOP and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) are asking from Reid is equally unrealistic given the history of this Congress.